Ciao Sebastiano,
did you use the mu-column of the xmu.dat? If so, the main difference between the chi.dat and the xmu.dat is that the mue_0 (as calculated by FEFF) is already subtracted in the former while it needs to be subtracted by Athena in the latter. Some of the difficulties you mentioned are thus due to problems of Athena to do a decent background (i.e. mue_0 and normalization) processing if there is no pre-edge region. Thus the effect of changing the absorption energy in Cu Bulk 4 from 8988.430eV to 8988.431eV is not caused by a *wrong* Enot but by a change in the edge-jump of almost 50% (due to a different *pre-edge*). Thus using the chi.dat seems to be the better (i.e. more reproducible) choice in this case (a precautionary note though: the mue_0 as calculated by FEFF will most likely differ between the central and the peripheral atoms; this may be part of the cluster-effect or an artifact (I assume that this is only a problem in the XANES region but I don't know, so you should check this by plotting the single mue_0).
HTH
Jakob
___________________________________________________
Jakob Frommer
Soil Chemistry Group
Institute of Biogeochemistry and Pollutant Dynamics,
ETH Zürich
Universitätstrasse 16,
CHN F19
CH - 8092 Zürich
Tel: +41 44 632 87 58
Fax: +41 44 633 11 18
web: http://www.ibp.ethz.ch/research/soilchemistry
________________________________
From: ifeffit-bounces@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov on behalf of ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
Sent: Fri 10/24/2008 09:57
To: ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
Subject: Ifeffit Digest, Vol 68, Issue 21
Send Ifeffit mailing list submissions to
ifeffit@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ifeffit
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
ifeffit-request@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
You can reach the person managing the list at
ifeffit-owner@millenia.cars.aps.anl.gov
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Ifeffit digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Fit XANES spectra using Athena (Adam Webb)
2. EXAFS simulations (Cammelli Sebastiano)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 07:39:55 +0200
From: Adam Webb
Hello everyone,
Sorry for bothering you again.
I am using least-squares peak fit and linear combination fit to analyze my samples. I have spent tons of time on it, and it really makes me crazy. Why can't I get consistent results from these two methods?
Please see the attached file. Both of these methods work well individually, but linear combination fit always need more peaks than peak fit to get an 'ok' fitting. Should I stick on one method for all my samples, no matter what results the other one gives? It is confusing me so much. Could anyone help me out?
Thank you in advance for your help!
Jenny
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2008 09:57:35 +0200
From: "Cammelli Sebastiano"